But assigning grades is nothing at all like vetoing legislation. One is supposed to be done objectively, and the other must be subjective. Any veto ever used by anyone ever in the history of veto-powers has been to further a political agenda.
Not quite the same. Plus it would be very interesting to see how this precedent would work. A lot of Congressional and Presidential actions would become illegal. No more trying to intimidate companies with adverse legislation or executive action for lawful, if frowned upon, activities.
The POTUS is not controlled by Texas law.
Perhaps not, but it would be an interesting law for Republicans to pass to rein in some abuses Democrats like to commit.
No, if there is a legitimate reason for a person not to have a particular job, there is a process for removing her from that job. It is called “due process”. Threatening to cut funding for an organization she oversees because of her job if she does not resign from that job is not following due process.
Furthermore, there is the issue that the organization in question was investigating corruption charges against an agency that was Perry’s pet project, and many of Perry’s cronies, possibly including Perry himself. Ergo, using a political tool of cutting funding for the agency in charge of investigating possible wrongdoing by the person doing the funding cut has got to be in the realm of “official misconduct”.
But there is a process for removing a District Attorney, and it does not involve cutting funding for the agency she heads unless she resigns.
Of course, that doesn’t speak to Hanson. It appears to be saying that Perry has the right to ask Lehmberg to resign, and he has the right to veto funding for the agency, and Lehmberg has the right to resign, so because all of those actions are legal, it cannot be illegal for Perry to condition the veto of funding of the agency on Lehmberg’s refusal to resign. That seems fishy to me. Lehmberg is an elected official and Perry does not control her employment. As an elected official, there is a process for Lehmberg’s removal that is separate from the funding of the agency she heads. It seems to me that this is a violation of due process. But I’m not a lawyer, so I have no idea how they will shake this out.
Thank you. It was a little unclear before her exact role. Head of the Unit made it sound like she is an Assistant District Attorney, but that role goes to the District Attorney directly.
No. The indictment has been cited above. McCrum was asked if other charges were considered by the Grand Jury, to which he replied that he was unable to comment upon what happened in the Jury room. However, he stated that he did look into a lot of other statutes, including official oppression and bribery.
And this may be sufficient to cover count I of the indictment. The prosecution is likely going to argue it is the motivations that make the actions illegal.
[QUOTE=Alan Dershowitz]
There is no room in America for abuse of office charges, and this has to stop once and for all. This is a serious problem.
[/QUOTE]
I have to disagree. I understand his frustration with the continued slide to using courts to attack political opponents for political agendas, but at the same time, the whole point of having a statute regarding Abuse of Office is that there are legitimate reasons to think an authority figure might be abusing his power, and there needs to be a process for addressing those abuses.
Perry could have vetoed funding for the PIU without even giving a reason. So even absent any DWI by the DA, he could have vetoed funding for the unit because a Democrat was heading it up and the unit was investigating things he didn’t like being investigated. Heck, he probably wouldn’t have been indicted for anything if he’d had the balls to do it this way. He could just say that he didn’t like the direction the PIU was taking.
At least that would have been clearly legal, even though the liberal media would probably have made a stink anyway.
As I said above, that’s the way a Democrat would do it. Underhanded, hidden, in the shadows.
Thankfully, we have you to clue us in to such shenanigans. :rolleyes:
It wasn’t just the DUI. It was:
- the DUi
- her behavior with law enforcement and the courts after her arrest
- the fact that she was the head of a Public Integrity Unit
- the fact that, as head of the unit, 7.5 million dollars would be entrusted to her
Is she given that money in a sack? Can she hit Reno with it?
5 Her department was investigating something he was involved in
+
6 If he went through proper legal channels he wouldn’t be able to put one of his cronies in place
That was a joke, son.
This may very well be true, but it’s a moot point really. While Perry may very well have had these more personal motivations, he only acted after her bad behavior gave Perry a legitimate reason to act.
It’s amazing how many people in this thread don’t see that. For some, not necessarily you, they are judging Perry as if Lehmberg hadn’t been convicted of DUI and behaved the way she did during the process.
This may well not have been against the law, but Lehmberg’s DUI has nothing to do with that. It’s either illegal to use veto threats to pressure the removal of someone from a position, or it’s legal. We’ll find out. It doesn’t become legal because that person had a DUI. The DUI is totally irrelevant.
Yup, Democrats are so underhanded that when we threaten people to make them do what we want, they don’t even know they’ve been threatened. Because threats work so effectively that way.
Again, Perry did not veto the funding because decreasing the funding was his goal. It did benefit him to a degree, but it would have benefited him even more for the head to resign so he could appoint her replacement. If he had vetoed the funding without saying anything, he would have been within the law, but would have gotten only part of his goal. Instead, he broke the law, in the hopes of getting his whole goal. What you’re saying that the way a Democrat would have done it would have been the way which doesn’t break any laws. Which is true, and which really doesn’t help the case you’re trying to build.
A legitimate reason to ask for her removal through the proper channels. Too bad he didn’t actually do that.
No, I just don’t think Lehmberg’s actions justify Perry’s. Again, there is a procedure for removing a DA, and but Perry didn’t follow that.
You’re right. Of course.
As a Texan, I am concerned that many people will be sympathetic to Magellan01’s point of view. Lehmberg was arrested for driving drunk and compounded that mistake by behaving poorly upon arrest. She does not make a sympathetic character in this story. I have already seen evidence that her sins will be used to justify Perry’s actions. Because she is such a horrible person (allegedly), Perry had every right to use whatever tools at his disposal to get her out of office.
I haven’t asked her, but I suspect that Perry’s power to appoint her successor is the very reason Lehmberg did not resign in the first place. I can’t imagine that this ride is going to be very fun for her. It certainly won’t move her career in a positive direction. While I do not excuse or condone her DUI and related behavior, I’ve got to give her props for settling in for a bumpy ride so that Perry doesn’t get to appoint the watchdog over his administration.
How does the Governor of Texas “oversee” (or control) the activities or funds of the offices of Senators, Congressmen, State Representatives, Mayors, and City Councilmen?
He doesn’t but the fact that Perry is a politician and has a mouth he can’t stop flapping, I’m surprised there wasn’t some kind of “Bringing shame to the Great State of Texas” statement about those officials.
First time he cares about a DUI and it’s someone at the head of an agency investigating Perry.